Episode 2: Choosing to Fly Home during Risky Times

Episode 2 of "Ang Tibay ng Mga Pilipino" focuses on Filipino college students who were studying in the United States and had to abruptly fly home when their schools closed down. They compare the response actions of the Philippines and United States as well as how Manila has changed under lockdown.

Sam Fabella, a freshman at the Berklee College of Music, and Irijah de Leon, a freshman at Columbia College Chicago, are both international students who travelled to the United States for college. Even if they have been to the United States before coming for college, they shared that their preconceptions of the public health systems only changed after witnessing their responses to the pandemic. In fact, they even shared that they feel safer in the Philippines under lockdown with their families because they know that the President is taking the situation seriously.

"It was kinda like a fever dream. I was eating in my favorite Thai restaurant when I got the email that all international students had to go home. So with my mouth full of rice, as if I could already taste home... and it all felt so sudden... I didn't think I was going home until I called my Mom and she booked a flight." - Sam Fabella

One of the main issues with the United States's reactive response to the pandemic is that there is no unified plan of action. As the pandemic has progressed, governors in each state have established their own protocols, with some adopting stricter and others more lax measures. The absence of nationwide coordination has highlighted the division of legal power be­tween the federal and state governments.

"We just don't have the resources. And with the quick and authoritarian-- even though I hate it and everyone hates it-- actions [of the President], it was a necessary evil to battle the virus." - Irijah de Leon

The government's stay at home orders, in both the United States and Philippines, are definitely a reasonable use of government power. In other circumstances, their actions may seem unconstitutional, but in this special situation in the face of a pandemic, it is a necessary order. The stay at home orders were not implemented  to restrict a person's rights but is a public health protocol necessary to slow the spread of COVID-19. One of the significant differences is that Americans continue to use their liberal values as excuse to protest the order, and they are not taking the situation seriously. When the greater good of the public is at stake, the government must, of course, make decisions that will serve the welfare of the community.

"The United States is “in a reac­tive mode,” says Jeremy Konyndyk, a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Devel­opment. “This is a virus that punishes delay… We’re still chasing the virus.”

As both students express, a part of the problem stems from the President of the United States himself. In some instances, such as when he talks about reopening the economy and encourages rather than demands that people stay home, the general public may follow suit and not take the pandemic as seriously as it should be too. With the entire health of the public at stake, this may be a necessary measure that the government should consider, as other countries have adopted the approach and seen significant improvements in the conditions in their respective countries. 

As a message to future historians who would be studying from the pandemic, both students emphasize that the pandemic should teach them to be more vigilant about these kinds of social and health issues. Most importantly, they hope that this crisis will not be forgotten in the years to come so as to serve as a reminder for people to elect better and more competent leaders.

"First of all, elect a better ****** President. Just imagine how many more things would have been different if we had those pandemic placeholders and facilities... Make sure that everybody can receive healthcare... What other students can learn is that being proactive is always better than being reactive." - Irijah de Leon